MATHUR, J. : This is a Government Appeal under S. 417, Cri. P.C. against the order of the Sessions Judge of Jhansi allowing the appeal of Dhanwan, respondent, and thereby acquitting him of the offence punishable under S. 19(f) of the Arms Act, on the ground that the D.B.M.L. gun said to have been recovered from his possession on 26-2-1961 was not sealed at the spot and the necessary link evidence not adduced to prove that the gun was recovered in the same condition and was the same as was produced before the trial Court. The learned Sessions Judge took this view on consideration of certain decisions of this Court. In view of the fact that the appeal was being allowed on a legal ground, the Sessions Judge did not record a finding whether the prosecution had or had not succeeded in proving the recovery of the gun from the possession of the respondent.

2. The learned counsel for the respondent made a request that in case the above question of law was decided against him, the appeal be remanded for a fresh hearing so that the respondent may also have the benefit of a finding of fact of the lower appellate Court, The request is a reasonable one and, in the circumstances, we are not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.

3. The simple question for consideration is if the testimony of eye witnesses as to the identity or the recovered gun can be disregarded because the recovered article had not been sealed at the spot or the prosecution did not care to produce during the trial formal evidence as to the sealing and safe transit or storage of the recovered article, to prove that the article produced before the Court was one which had been recovered from the possession of the accused.

4. At the very outset it may be observed that there is no provision in the Cr. P.C., nor in any other enactment including the Arms Act, under which St is necessary for the investigating Officer to seal the recovered article at the spot, nor is there any provision that if necessary link evidence as to the safe transit and storage of the recovered article is not adduced, the evidence of recovery shall not be admissible or sufficient for conviction. Our attention was, however, drawn to Para 142(1) of the Police Regulations under which all substances or articles connected with the commission of an offence which may toe required as evidence at a trial should be sent with an invoice by the investigating Officer to the Prosecuting inspector in a sealed cover with the contents noted outside. This rule applies to all the material exhibits and is not confined to those which will later be put for identification or the possession whereof is unlawful without licence or permission of a competent authority. Such

a rule cannot be considered to be mandatory. Even if a contrary view is taken, non-compliance of the rule shall be a mere irregularity which will not make the courts of law view the recovery with doubt in each and every case. It shall depend upon the facts of an individual case whether to accept or not to accept the sworn testimony of witnesses.

5. It is a rule of caution and prudence not to accept the evidence of recovery if the investigating Officer does not seal the recovered article at the spot or the link evidence is not adduced during the trial to prove that the article recovered is the one produced before the Court. In the eye of law, it is the statement on oath before the Courts of law which is substantive evidence and other evidence is merely to corroborate that testimony or to show that such, testimony is authentic and should be accepted. Where substantive evidence is itself acceptable, the Courts shall not be justified in rejecting it for want of stereotyped evidence or for want of corroboration. For example, if the recovered article is a suit, made to order, tailored by one who invariably stitches and has stitched his name tag on, the suit with the name of the person for whom it was so tailored, it is not at all necessary to seal the rec